FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case, one precedential opinion in an employment case, and one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In one of the two pending en banc cases addressing veterans law, the court requested the parties file supplemental briefs to address concerns with Article III standing. Other updates include new petitions raising questions related to patent marking, expert testimony, willful infringement, and sanctions; a new invitation to respond to a petition raising a question related to remedies; a new amicus brief in a case raising a question related to double-patenting; and the denial of two petitions raising questions related to patent eligibility and claim construction. Here are the details.

For the second day in a row the Federal Circuit did not publish any new opinions or orders.

On Friday the Federal Circuit issued an order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus in In re Google, a case we have been following because it attracted amicus briefs. In the order, the court denied the petition because, it found, Google did not meet its heavy burden. Moreover, the court indicated that Google may obtain meaningful review after a final judgment is issued in its pending case. Here is a summary of the case and the order.

The Federal Circuit did not publish any opinions or orders this morning on its website.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion denying a petition for a writ of mandamus regarding a motion to transfer venue. Here is the text of the order.

The Federal Circuit did not publish any new opinions or orders this morning.

Guest post by Kevin B. Laurence and Matthew C. Phillips.

Stay jurisprudence from the Federal Circuit is a legacy of the Transitional Program for Covered Business Method (“CBM”) Review. Prior to the America Invents Act (AIA), the Federal Circuit rarely heard appeals related to stay motions because of the final-judgment rule.[1] However, under the CBM statute, a party to a CBM review was allowed to take an immediate interlocutory appeal from a district court’s decision regarding whether to stay an infringement case pending a CBM review.[2] The CBM statute was intended to increase the predictability of context-dependent stay decisions and to increase the grant rate of CBM-related stay motions. At the sunset of the eight-year CBM program on September 16, 2020, we reflect on the CBM stay jurisprudence developed around this statute.

The Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential order in a veterans case late yesterday. This morning, the court issued a pair of Rule 36 judgments. Here is the text of the order and links to the Rule 36 judgments.